[Starlingx-discuss] StarlingX.repo using CentOS 7.3 binary repos instead of 7.4?

[McKenna, Jason]

Hi Cindy,

Just as a heads’ up, we have not done the analysis to move from CentOS 7.4 to 7.5.  The blacklist we generated was as we migrated from 7.2, through 7.3, and to 7.4.  We’ve uprev’d a few packages since then to the match 7.5, but this has been on an as-required basis.

-Jason

From: Xie, Cindy <cindy.xie at intel.com>
Sent: July 19, 2018 2:57 AM
To: Rowsell, Brent <Brent.Rowsell at windriver.com>; Hu, Yong <yong.hu at intel.com>; Little, Scott <Scott.Little at windriver.com>; starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] StarlingX.repo using CentOS 7.3 binary repos instead of 7.4?

Brent, Scott,
This is great information! It turns out the way of handling the retired RPM packages are different from WR internal mirror and Intel scripts (to generate mirror):


-          WR will move the retired RPM and its dependency RPM from 7.4 repo to 7.5 repo, and this is where the blacklist from Scott coming from;

-          Intel turn to other 3rd party repo (hosted by somebody else other than RHS) and download the exact same version (the missing ones from RHS repo due to retirement).

To me, if WR has gone through the RPM dependency map analysis and correctly migrate the retired RPMs from 7.4 to 7.5, then I think it’s a more reliable way. Also this is prefer way from security point of view.

@ Scott, I think this worthy a discussion in Bruce’s meeting for how to setup external mirror. And I wish this could be a short-term solution before Cesar’s long-term solution up & running. Then we can ensure external build can work for WR.

Thanks. - cindy

From: Rowsell, Brent [mailto:Brent.Rowsell at windriver.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 9:04 AM
To: Hu, Yong <yong.hu at intel.com<mailto:yong.hu at intel.com>>; Little, Scott <Scott.Little at windriver.com<mailto:Scott.Little at windriver.com>>; starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io<mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>
Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] StarlingX.repo using CentOS 7.3 binary repos instead of 7.4?

Moving to 7.5 should be considered as part of the upcoming release, but retirement of existing patches needs to be part of that plan.

Brent

From: Hu, Yong [mailto:yong.hu at intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 8:48 PM
To: Little, Scott <Scott.Little at windriver.com<mailto:Scott.Little at windriver.com>>; starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io<mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>
Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] StarlingX.repo using CentOS 7.3 binary repos instead of 7.4?

What if we move to the latest 7.5 1804?
Do you see any drawbacks or hard dependencies still on old packages?

Regards,
Yong
From: Scott Little <scott.little at windriver.com<mailto:scott.little at windriver.com>>
Date: Wednesday, 18 July 2018 at 11:17 PM
To: "starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io<mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>" <starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io<mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>>
Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] StarlingX.repo using CentOS 7.3 binary repos instead of 7.4?

StarlingX should be based on Centos 7.4 for the vast majority of packages.  I think there are a dozen that have made the move to 7.5.  There are also a few that we blacklisted and are pulling from earlier releases.

I'll attach my black_list notes as they exist today.  I'll have to audit them to make sure my notes are up to date.

Scott




On 18-07-18 10:47 AM, Penney, Don wrote:
Hi all,

The StarlingX.repo file in stx-tools has all the CentOS 7.4.1708 binary repos disabled and is instead using 7.3.1611. This would likely explain why some of the specified RPMs cannot be downloaded via yum, as they were upversioned in 7.4.

Was this done for a particular reason, or is it a configuration error?


Don Penney, Developer, Wind River



_______________________________________________

Starlingx-discuss mailing list

Starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io<mailto:Starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>

http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.starlingx.io/pipermail/starlingx-discuss/attachments/20180719/90bf2973/attachment.html>